R v O'GRADY [2001] NSWSC 631

R v O'GRADY [2001] NSWSC 631

The Crown could cross-examine the accused about omission from the ERISP of hearing voices and lack of control because questions in the interview fairly called for those matters, but not about flashbacks because no questions fairly inspired that topic. The sister's evidence was admissible under s66(2) of the Evidence Act and s72. After the jury's verdict, open justice justified making the ERISP video tape available to the press because the asserted risk to police investigations and the accused's age did not provide sufficient reason to restrict access, but safeguards were required to prevent publication of Mr Krook's image.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Rulings During Trial and on Media Application After Jury Verdict
Outcome
ERISP video tape made available to the press subject to safeguards preventing photographic depiction of Mr Krook; related evidentiary rulings made during the trial.
Legal Topics
['erisp Video Tape' 'cross Examination on Omissions in Police Interview' 'voluntariness of Conduct' 'hearsay Exceptions' 'publication of Court Exhibits' 'anonymity of Young Persons in Criminal Proceedings']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure' 'open Justice and Media Access'] ['erisp Video Tape' 'cross Examination on Omissions in Police Interview' 'voluntariness of Conduct' 'hearsay Exceptions' 'publication of Court Exhibits' 'anonymity of Young Persons in Criminal Proceedings']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Rulings During Trial and on Media Application After Jury Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown was entitled to cross-examine the accused about his failure in the ERISP to mention hearing voices, flashbacks, and lack of control relied upon at trial.' "Whether evidence from the accused's sister of a conversation with the accused about a month after the shooting was admissible." "Whether the press should be given access to copy and broadcast the ERISP video tape after the jury's verdict, and whether any restriction should protect Mr Krook's image." "Whether the accused's age at the time of interview justified limiting access to the ERISP video tape."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown could cross-examine the accused about omission from the ERISP of hearing voices and lack of control because questions in the interview fairly called for those matters, but not about flashbacks because no questions fairly inspired that topic. The sister's evidence was admissible under s66(2) of the Evidence Act and s72. After the jury's verdict, open justice justified making the ERISP video tape available to the press because the asserted risk to police investigations and the accused's age did not provide sufficient reason to restrict access, but safeguards were required to prevent publication of Mr Krook's image.

Court Disposition

ERISP video tape made available to the press subject to safeguards preventing photographic depiction of Mr Krook; related evidentiary rulings made during the trial.

Orders

  • ['The Crown was permitted to cross-examine the accused on his failure to mention during the ERISP that he heard voices or lacked control.' "The question to the accused's sister about what the accused said to her was allowed and the evidence admitted." 'The ERISP video tape was made available to the press, provided...